Punjab & Haryana High Court
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that if the second wife who was appointed as nominee by the husband will be entitled for compassionate appointment by the Government even if the first wife was not legally divorced.
In the present case the law officer of the concerned department had opined that first marriage of the deceased employee was dissolved by the Panchayat which had no legal sanctity, hence the second marriage would not be valid. Considering the opinion, the compassionate appointment to the second wife was declined.
Justice Deepinder Singh Nalwa referring to catena of judgements said, “Petitioner No.1 (widow) of late Tirath Singh, who has been declared nominee in the service record and was wholly dependent upon the late Tirath Singh, is held entitled for grant of appointment on compassionate ground.”
The plea was filed by Kirandeep Kaur seeking direction to the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) to grant compassionate appointment being wife of Tirath Singh (since deceased), who was employed as Assistant Lineman on regular basis with the Corporation and also for grant of solatium to the two minor daughters of Tirath Singh.
Singh was working on the post of Assistant Lineman with the respondent Corporation, who had expired on 26.02.2022 while he was in service with the Corporation. Singh, the husband of petitioner was earlier married with Baljinder Kaur in the year 2006 and obtained Panchayati divorce from her in the year 2007.
After the death of Tirath Singh, the petitioner applied for grant of appointment on compassionate ground and submitted an application to the competent authority. The case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment was duly considered at various levels. Various affidavits and documents were submitted by petitioner No. 1 with the respondent Corporation. After submission of all the relevant documents, the case of the petitioners was considered for compassionate appointment.
The first wife of Tirath Singh (since deceased) also submitted an affidavit to an extent that she will not claim compassionate appointment nor will make any claim in future. The case of the petitioner for grant of appointment on compassionate ground was sent to the Law Officer of the Corporation for opinion.
The Law Officer, in his opinion, stated that a Panchayati compromise cannot be considered equivalent to a court decree for divorce; thus, the first marriage remains legally valid. Based on this opinion, the petitioner was not offered appointment on compassionate grounds.
After hearing the submissions, the Court noted that the petitioner does not acquire a status of the wife/spouse for a contracted marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage, however, it is an admitted fact that petitioner was married with Tirath Singh (since deceased) in the year 2009 and was blessed with two daughters.
It is admitted fact that petitioner was residing with late Tirath Singh almost for 23 years till he expired on 26.02.2022. Petitioner No.1 has been declared as a nominee in the service record of late Tirath Singh and is entitled for grant of retiral benefits in accordance with law, it noted further.
The Court highlighted that the first wife of Tirath Singh (since deceased) has already given an affidavit to the effect that she will not claim appointment on compassionate ground and admittedly fact the second wife and their children were wholly dependent upon late Tirath Singh.
Reliance was pleased on Vidyadhari & Ors. versus Sukhrana Bai & Ors. [2008(1) RCR (Civil) 900] wherein the husband contracted second marriage during the subsistence of first marriage being void however the second wife was held entitled for grant of pension on the basis that she was declared as a nominee in the service record.
Allowing the plea, the Court directed the respondents to permit the petitioner (second wife) to join the duty in pursuance to the appointment letter issued while the pendency of the case.
Mr. G. S. Punia, Sr. Advocate, with Ms. Harleen Kaur, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Rangat Joshi, Advocate, for the respondents.
Title: Kirandeep Kaur and others v. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others
